It is a matter of opinion whether it ought to be you, an individual, or an entire nation, or entirety of humanity to avoid pain and enjoin pleasure, or the opposite. It is a matter of opinion whether someone ought to be in pain and pleasure, which is the point. Similarly, benefit may be relative to individual people and minds but it's not just a matter of opinion whether someone is in pain or whether they are in pleasure. It is relative - I bloody well hope you can't see the computer in front of me - but it is not subjective - it's not just my opinion that I can see the computer in front of me. Either I can see the computer in front of me or I cannot. Something can be dependent on the mind and still objective. We don't really need to get out our rulers to measure whether the sun is closer to me than the glass of water sitting on my desk, and therefore we can just eyeball it, and similarly we can just eyeball whether murder is better or worse than kindness and love and fluffy bunnies. While we struggle to find objective measures for how much benefit something causes (the same way we struggle to find objective measures of pain, even though someone is either experiencing more pain than they would in another situation or they are not and that is not just a matter of opinion), it seems relatively obvious that murder is harmful to people. So what is the example of moral value that does not rest on your subjective valuation of something? How can you explain that murder is objectively wrong without resorting to "well we don't know for sure, but of course it exists!" pseudo-theistic argument?
Darussalam wrote:Unlike physical distance, benefit and morality does not exist independent of mind.
0 kommentar(er)
